3 ms·

> Unfortunately, I've interviewed people with 20 years of experience who were only marginally more skilled than someone with two or three years. The "1 year of

> Unfortunately, I've interviewed people with 20 years of experience who were only marginally more skilled than someone with two or three years. The "1 year of experience ten times" effect is unfortunately a real one. If you are not capable of identifying these people without spending hours of staff time and engaging in whiteboarding exercises, something is very wrong in my opinion. The person you're describing will not be able to pass a thoughtful 15 minute phone screen, and that's if a phone screen even happens because this type of candidate probably doesn't make it past a resume review if the person reviewing the resume is qualified.

g8gggu89 11y ago
How exactly do you think a resume review will reveal how in depth they went on projects and coding? Or even a 15 minute phone screen that has no coding involved? It's pretty easy to list interesting sounding projects you worked on and not mention that you had only minor involvement in them. I'd love to know what questions will actually reveal this.
- 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
  A good resume from an experienced candidate will describe the work the candidate actually performed. A resume that is ambiguous as to the candidate's contributions is usually worth tossing. In the case of a phone screen, I honestly find it hard to believe that folks have so much difficulty believing that it's possible to get a good sense of a candidate's skill and knowledge without sitting over his or her shoulder and watching him or her code. A phone screen is a conversation. In most cases, a candidate who is faking it will have a very hard time describing in technical detail his or her work, and answering technical questions about his or her work. Start with candidates who have good resumes. Ideally get code samples and/or a portfolio. Prepare for your phone screen so you can ask good questions. It really is that simple.
  - cpitman 11y ago
    A resume can say anything. Some of it may even be true. So how are you telling the difference between a good resume and a faked good resume? It's just like spam filtering, both the candidates and companies are in an arms race to try to improve/bypass hiring filters.
    - 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
      This level of paranoia is kind of amusing. If you take the time to review a resume thoroughly and ask thoughtful technical questions about a candidate's past work in the phone screen, the phone screen is almost always going to be a painful and embarrassing experience for a lying candidate. And such a candidate will virtually never make it past a reference check. The problem is that most companies are lazy. Hiring managers don't read resumes closely and wing it (i.e. jump on phone screens without preparing). Reference checks? What are those?
      - g8gggu89 11y ago
        It's hilarious that you think this is paranoia. I almost wish I could live in your rose-tinted world, where no one lied ever, references were a good way to judge coding ability, and apparently all new grads magically have relevant references. People can memorize the key features of OOP, but still not be able to use it. So do you not hire new grads? Do you never hire someone with an extensive background in C, because you dare not quiz anyone and you don't want to risk hiring someone who can't really ever get a handle on OOP? Are you going to pay the total cost of all these people, who probably won't last 3 months? What's even sillier is that I bet most people, given the option, would prefer to try solving some small problems for a short period of time if they knew it could help their chances of getting the job. Why wouldn't you if you knew you were competent?
angelbob 11y ago
You'd be amazed how many of these guys make it past even very good resume screens. A resume is easy to lie about. You're right, phone screens usually get them, but not always. A fair number can still make it through.
- bcassedy 11y ago
  I'm curious what you're asking in phone screens that identifies these types. I typically don't handle phone screens, but it's pretty common for us to get candidates with 5 - 20+ years of experience that clearly have not reached a depth of knowledge and wisdom that is commensurate with their years on the job.

g8gggu89 11y ago

How exactly do you think a resume review will reveal how in depth they went on projects and coding? Or even a 15 minute phone screen that has no coding involved? It's pretty easy to list interesting sounding projects you worked on and not mention that you had only minor involvement in them. I'd love to know what questions will actually reveal this.

7Figures2Commas 11y ago
A good resume from an experienced candidate will describe the work the candidate actually performed. A resume that is ambiguous as to the candidate's contributions is usually worth tossing. In the case of a phone screen, I honestly find it hard to believe that folks have so much difficulty believing that it's possible to get a good sense of a candidate's skill and knowledge without sitting over his or her shoulder and watching him or her code. A phone screen is a conversation. In most cases, a candidate who is faking it will have a very hard time describing in technical detail his or her work, and answering technical questions about his or her work. Start with candidates who have good resumes. Ideally get code samples and/or a portfolio. Prepare for your phone screen so you can ask good questions. It really is that simple.
- cpitman 11y ago
  A resume can say anything. Some of it may even be true. So how are you telling the difference between a good resume and a faked good resume? It's just like spam filtering, both the candidates and companies are in an arms race to try to improve/bypass hiring filters.
  - 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
    This level of paranoia is kind of amusing. If you take the time to review a resume thoroughly and ask thoughtful technical questions about a candidate's past work in the phone screen, the phone screen is almost always going to be a painful and embarrassing experience for a lying candidate. And such a candidate will virtually never make it past a reference check. The problem is that most companies are lazy. Hiring managers don't read resumes closely and wing it (i.e. jump on phone screens without preparing). Reference checks? What are those?
    - g8gggu89 11y ago
      It's hilarious that you think this is paranoia. I almost wish I could live in your rose-tinted world, where no one lied ever, references were a good way to judge coding ability, and apparently all new grads magically have relevant references. People can memorize the key features of OOP, but still not be able to use it. So do you not hire new grads? Do you never hire someone with an extensive background in C, because you dare not quiz anyone and you don't want to risk hiring someone who can't really ever get a handle on OOP? Are you going to pay the total cost of all these people, who probably won't last 3 months? What's even sillier is that I bet most people, given the option, would prefer to try solving some small problems for a short period of time if they knew it could help their chances of getting the job. Why wouldn't you if you knew you were competent?

angelbob 11y ago

You'd be amazed how many of these guys make it past even very good resume screens. A resume is easy to lie about. You're right, phone screens usually get them, but not always. A fair number can still make it through.

bcassedy 11y ago
I'm curious what you're asking in phone screens that identifies these types. I typically don't handle phone screens, but it's pretty common for us to get candidates with 5 - 20+ years of experience that clearly have not reached a depth of knowledge and wisdom that is commensurate with their years on the job.